ST. PETERSBURG AUTOMOBILE MUSEUM, INC., H. THOMAS LEWIS AND SCOTT A. KJEER, APPELLANTS,
v.
KEVIN M. THOMPSON, REALTYCORP OF TAMPA, INC., AND ROBERT CRISTALDI, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellants challenged a trial court's order granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings that removed them from litigation based on admissions in their answer. The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to vacate the order and allow the appellants to file an amended answer, particularly where the erroneous admissions were made through counsel error and the appellees suffered no prejudice.
Yes, the trial court abused its discretion. The appellants must be allowed to vacate the order granting the motion for judgment on the pleadings and file an amended answer with any available affirmative defenses so they may continue to participate in the litigation.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by refusing to vacate an order granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings when the moving party seeks to file an amended answer a…
[2] A motion for relief from judgment and to vacate an order granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings, accompanied by affidavits, may present factual contentions that…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Based upon the record before us and the absence of demonstrated prejudice to the appellees, both here and in the trial court, we are persuaded that it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court not to vacate the order granting appellees' motion for judgment on the pleadings and permitting Lewis, Kjeer and SPAM to file an amended answer, whatever affirmative defenses were available to them and to continue to participate in the litigation.”
Establishes the standard for review and the court's holding that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to allow amendment despite lack of prejudice to the opposing party.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLewis and Kjeer, along with St. Petersburg Automobile Museum, Inc. (SPAM), were sued by Thompson, Realtycorp of Tampa, and Cristaldi for alleged breac…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Judgment On The Pleadings cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK, Judge.
The determinative question in this matter is whether the trial court erred in refusing to vacate the order granting the appellees' motion for judgment on the pleadings thus foreclosing the appellants, Lewis, Kjeer and SPAM from the filing of an amended answer and otherwise defending the action. We conclude that it did. In reaching our conclusion that the trial court committed reversible error, we need not recount the various elements and events associated with the complex commercial transactions underlying this proceeding.
It is sufficient for our purpose to note that the complaint alleged, inter alia, the breach by Lewis and Kjeer of a “letter of intent” pursuant to which they acquired from the appellee, Robert A. Cristaldi, ownership of the corporate entity known as St. Petersburg Automobile Museum, Inc. (SPAM) and the property, real and personal, owned, occupied by and used in the operation of SPAM. In responding to the complaint, the attorney then representing Lewis, Kjeer and SPAM filed an answer denying that Lewis and Kjeer acquired from Cristaldi the stock or subscriptive rights in SPAM or title to SPAM’s property. Based upon that state of the pleadings, the appellees asserted in a motion for judgment on the pleadings that Lewis and Kjeer had no legal or equitable interest in SPAM or the property with the result that the stock or subscriptive rights remained in Cristaldi’s ownership, SPAM retained title to the property and the attorney representing Lewis, Kjeer and SPAM had no authority to act on behalf of SPAM. The trial court agreed and entered an order granting the motion for judgment on the pleadings which it refused to vacate upon a subsequent motion filed by Lewis, Kjeer and SPAM.
In seeking to vacate the order Lewis, Kjeer and SPAM contended before the trial court that the answer erroneously contained the denials relied upon in granting the appellees’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. The motion for relief from judgment and to vacate the order granting the appellees’ motion for judgment on the pleadings was accompanied by the affidavits of Lewis and Kjeer. The motion and the affidavits contain an array of factual contentions which, if proven, would contraindicate the propriety of the order granting appellees’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. That order removed Lewis, Kjeer and SPAM from the litigation, barred them from defending the action, and exposed the interests they intended to protect to substantial detriment.
Based upon the record before us and the absence of demonstrated prejudice to the appellees, both here and in the trial court, we are persuaded that it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court not to vacate the order granting appellees’ motion for judgment on the pleadings and permitting Lewis, Kjeer and SPAM to file an amended answer, whatever affirmative defenses were available to them and to continue to participate in the litigation. See Imperial Bonita Estates, Inc. v. Minster, 283 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973).
Accordingly, we reverse, vacate the trial court’s order granting the appellees’ motion for judgment on the pleadings and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.
CAMPBELL, C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Jacinta R. Massani, 627 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…epared to try the issues of uninsured motorist coverage, liability and comparative negligence. Therefore, it is undisputed that the plaintiff would not have been surprised or prejudiced by this amendment. See St. Petersburg Auto. Museum v. Thompson, 561 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Azemco (N. Am.), Inc. v. Brown, 553 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). The trial court also erred in directing a verdict against the defendant on its seat belt defense. There was sufficient evidence presented to withstand a motion…
-
Calton, Inc. v. Camelot AT Mariners' Vill., 576 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…ial court also denied the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration which included a request to amend the pleadings. We hold that the trial court erred in failing to grant the plaintiff leave to amend. See St. Petersburg Auto. Museum, Inc. v. Thompson, 561 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Accordingly, we vacate the final judgment entering judgment on the pleadings and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. REVERSED and REMANDED. COWART, GRIFFIN and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.…
-
James v. Carr, 900 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…plained that it was her practice to add commentary to orders when appropriate. This appeal follows. We find that the lower court abused its discretion in denying the Motion to Vacate the Order on Fees. St. Petersburg Auto. Museum, Inc. v. Thompson, 561 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). The parties had agreed on the exact form of the Agreed Order for disbursement of the $47,000 in professional fees. The proposed Agreed Order was silent on the issue of releases. By the trial court’s own account, the court (undoub…
Authorities Cited
- Imperial Bonita Ests., Inc. v. Minster, 283 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)